ICC Scanner Profile for B&W Scans

[Henry Ambrose]

Ahhh......
I now see where the confusion exists.

When you scan your B&W negs as color you are working in COLOR not greyscale. So you do indeed want to apply color management so that later when you tone your photo that lovely olive you can be sure that your prints will match your lovely olive toning you saw on screen.

The thread referenced in your original post in this thread was a question about scanning B&W as greyscale and then wandered off the subject into color profiles.

So here goes:
When you scan a piece of film as color (or colorize in PS) then color management could apply. If your scanner embeds a profile into the scan than thats what governs its color.

When you are working in greyscale, color management does not apply. There are settings carried by the greyscale file about dot gain and gamma but there is no profile in greyscale. No color=no color profile.

When scanning color negatives and the file is transferred into PS it will either have a profile that your scanning software put in it or it will have none. In the later case, you can embed a profile when you save. You can choose something else but, if for instance, you are using Adobe98 as a working space, it'd be what shows up as first choice when you go to save the file and it'd be a good choice to embed.

The only time I can see a reason to embed a printer color profile when saving a file is if you didn't think the printer you were sending to couldn't handle converting the file's profile. Really I don't think there'd ever be a reason to do this.

If you want to read up on all this stuff for free and get excellent, correct advice go to www.digitaldog.net/ there is loads of good info there. Click on "tips" to get to the articles. Andrew Rodney knows what he's writing about.

[Mike Boden]

As far as embedding printer profiles, I do this all the time. I use A&I in Los Angeles to print on a Lightjet. They have an option at a cheaper price called Direct-to-Print. This requires me to make any necessary adjustments to the image before sending them the file. Once they get the file, they simply send the numbers to the printer with no profile conversion at all. This is because I've already done it for them. I've soft-proof the image at home using their printer profile, make any necessary corrections, and then finally convert to their profile. Easy and simple. This way, I know no one on their end is going to screw with my image.

[Henry Ambrose]

Yep, thats a good reason.

Here my lab asks for Adobe98 files for the Durst Lambda under same conditions for what they call "Lambda-direct". I think they chose Adobe98 space since its pretty much ubiquitous.

[Mike Boden]

Yep, thats a good reason.

Here my lab asks for Adobe98 files for the Durst Lambda under same conditions for what they call "Lambda-direct". I think they chose Adobe98 space since its pretty much ubiquitous.

So what you're saying is that they don't offer a printer profile for you to soft proof? If this is the case, that kinda sucks.

I remember a while back I tested out another lab in town that had a Lightjet. I heard great things about these guys so I wanted to try them out and compare them against A&I. The thing was that they were twice the price, so I wanted to find out why. Anyways, they kinda gave a big stink about giving me their printer profile and that it wasn't that big of a deal; they would take care of the conversion. But I basically said that if they didn't give it to me, then I wouldn't be printing with them. In the end, I sent the same image to both companies, using each respective profile, and I couldn't tell a difference to save my life. So...I'm still with A&I at half the price and happy for it. I've been using them for fifteen years and have become friends with many there. Why should I change at this point, right?

[Chris_Brown]

I'm not confused about any of this, I'm just probing for more information, seeing if there's another way, a better way to work. Others had posted that assigning input profiles to scans of negs was not their method, and I'm looking for their technical reasons as to why, and wanted to discuss their results.

When scanning color negatives and the file is transferred into PS it will either have a profile that your scanning software put in it or it will have none. In the later case, you can embed a profile when you save. You can choose something else but, if for instance, you are using Adobe98 as a working space, it'd be what shows up as first choice when you go to save the file and it'd be a good choice to embed.

I think this is incorrect. The color profile of a sheet of color neg film, digitized through a scanner does not have a colorspace/gamut/white point equal to the Adobe '98 color space. I think the colorspace would have much different characteristics and correlate more closely to the characteristics of the film and scanner.

Apparently it's not possible to accurately profile a scanner for negative films. (I will include B&W films in this category if an RGB scan is made from that film.) Typically the process of converting a negative image (from a film negative) to a positive image requires the use of proprietary software algorithms. The elimination of the orange mask (or any other mask) apparently isn't just the removal of orange in an image. The improved separation of shadow detail (the toe of the film curve) might require special algorithms. It's not just a simple inversion of the L curve. (I'm not making any of this up, I'm simply re-stating what I've read over the years). So the digital conversion of a film negative is an "interpretation" not merely the mapping of electronic impulses in a PMT to an 8- or 16-bit value. Add to this variations in a film brands orange mask, or the lack of one with B&W films, and the process of getting a truly accurate input profile become muddy at best.

But still, I'd rather have some kind of input profile to tag a scan with, rather than assign an arbritrary profile in Photoshop. The conundrum is whether or not to assign an input profile made from an HCT transparency (he uses Fuji Velvia) to a scan of a Kodak color negative.

[Henry Ambrose]

"So what you're saying is that they don't offer a printer profile for you to soft proof? If this is the case, that kinda sucks."

My lab also offers the -option- of a printer profile to download so it doesn't "suck" anymore.

I was agreeing with you about that being a good reason to save a file with a printer profile. But still I'd do this only for what I was sending to a specific printer, no the working or archive file. No reason to change what works for you.

[Mike Boden]

I was agreeing with you about that being a good reason to save a file with a printer profile. But still I'd do this only for what I was sending to a specific printer, no the working or archive file. No reason to change what works for you.

I think we're on the same page. I save a master final image that remains in my working color space. From there, I'll make any necessary changes and conversions based on the output, whether it's for a Lightjet, Epson, CMYK press, or whatever.

[Henry Ambrose]

"I'm not confused about any of this, I'm just probing for more information, seeing if there's another way, a better way to work. Others had posted that assigning input profiles to scans of negs was not their method, and I'm looking for their technical reasons as to why, and wanted to discuss their results."

I never said you were confused. I wrote "confusion". We were not using the same terms, not even talking about the same thing.

So I sent you to an excellent source of information to read. Some of its basic and some of it is fully advanced. You can even write Andrew and ask him questions. But I bet if you go through some of the .pdfs there you'll figure it out on your own.

In the meantime here's something to ponder:

When your scanner sends a file to your computer does the file have a color profile or not?

If your file does have a profile then that profile (whatever it is) rules the numbers in that file. Your chosen working space controls how it looks on your monitor. The printer profile controls how it looks on that printer.

If the file has no profile, you can leave it alone (unmanaged color) or you can give it a profile. When you save the file PS will covert it and embed a profile if you tell it to. It will do this with the profile you tell it to use. Or you can leave it alone and guess about its color.

Anyway, colors from a color negative are "interpretive" not "literal" like a color positive. So you get to pick the colors.

If you are shooting color positives the piece of film in your hand is literally "the" color reference. Courtesy of a properly functioning color management system your scan can be made to closely mimic those reference colors in the film as can the view on your monitor and your prints.

[Chris_Brown]

Henry, thanks for your input, and here's some questions for you:

1. Do you profile your scanner?
2. Do you apply that input profile to any or all scans of color negatives?
3. Do you apply that input profile to scans of B&W negatives?
4. Are you aware that input profiles generated from transparencies do not correctly map the color gamut and tonal characteristics of negative films?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, please tell us how you expect to acquire accurate color and tonal values from scans of film negatives.

[Henry Ambrose]

If you answered "yes" to these questions, please tell us how you expect to acquire accurate color and tonal values from scans of film negatives.

Thats the whole point of this. I don't expect "accurate" color from color negative film. Its not happening in the film and its not happening in the scan. I can, from a carefully calibrated monitor and color managed system, predict what the color will look like when printed. So I can take charge of color negative film color once I get it in the computer. Color management simply starts later in the process than with a color positive scanned and given a profile at scanning.

"Accurate" color is pretty nebulous. No color neg film does it. No color tranparency film gives "accurate" color. The closest would be Kodak EPN shot under very carefully controlled conditions in a studio. Typical landscape films like Kodak 100VS or Fuji Velvia are way off from "accurate" color. (not a knock on anyone's favorite film)

With a color transparency in your hand you can reproduce the colors in that piece of film through a functioning color managed system. (within the physical capabilites of the devices you use for reproduction) This can start at scanning a color transparency by using a color profile for your scanner and the film of choice. If you are using color negative you will interpret the colors and having made your decisions about them opt to manage them (or not) in your color managed workflow.